In the wake of White House moves to implement some gun control by using executive orders, the antigovernment “Patriot” right has exploded with fury, claiming that virtually any regulation amounts to an infringement of the Constitution or even a prelude to a national “gun grab” by federal forces hoping to disarm citizens once and for all.

These and similar claims have come from nearly every corner of the radical right. But one of the most noteworthy recent responses comes from the Oath Keepers, a group of conspiracy-minded current and former members of law enforcement and the military who believe a tyrannical and gun-hating “New World Order” is planned by global elites. Vowing to fight any legislation to ban “assault weapons,” the Oath Keepers have announced rallies at state houses across the nation on Friday with the aim of sending a message to lawmakers that the “they will be held accountable if they choose to dishonor” their oath to the Constitution.

At issue are plans on both federal and state levels for increased gun regulations following the Dec. 14 slaying of 26 people in a Connecticut elementary school –– regulations that Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes says are being pushed by “disarmament freaks.”

In a December manifesto entitled “My Personal Pledge of Resistance Against Any Attempt to Disarm Us by Means of an ‘Assault Weapons Ban,’” Rhodes denounced federal efforts to rob him of “every terrible implement of the soldier” and vowed not to disarm, “regardless of what law is passed by the oath breakers in Congress, or signed into law by the oath breaker in the White House.”

“It is the height of Orwellian perversion of language and logic to say that disarming you of the most effective arms for combat that you still have is somehow not really disarming you, because you still have hunting rifles and shotguns,” Rhodes wrote, referring to calls to restrict or ban “assault rifles.” “And you can bet that if you let them take your military semi-autos, next on their list will be your bolt action rifles, which they will call ‘sniper rifles’ (and by God, that is certainly what they are good for!).”

It is unclear what the turnout to the rallies will be, but in the past hundreds of Oath Keepers have answered calls to muster in such places at Quartzsite, Ariz., where Rhodes insisted the New World Order had begun its power grab just last year. And just as it did then –– despite its charged rhetoric –– the Oath Keepers are again calling for “peaceful demonstrations.”

All the same, a different statement seems to be coming from the rank-and-file.

As someone calling himself James C. Ferris wrote on the Oath Keepers’ website on Wednesday, “I believe it is time we did like they did in 1776,” he said. “There is no use in havind [sic] our guns if we won’t use them.”

I’m done with you. You are truly a warped individual, and in need of serious help.

If you want to view this as a submission, go ahead. I don’t care. You seriously are no longer worthy of my time.

Erika

Alan, i wouldn’t group the marijuana legalization movements at the state level to the Oath Keepers/militia/nullification movement at all. Marijuana possession is purely a local criminal law matter almost entirely dealt with at the state level and is covered by the general police power which constitutionally only the states possess. Its perfectly reasonable for a state government or for voters in a state (where allowed) to define how they will exercise the general police power and handle local criminal law matters.

Now the federal government still has the power to regulate distribution of marijuana even locally. They probably shouldn’t based upon prudential considerations and the lack of a federal interest – but that is a policy and not a legal argument. In fact, anyone who believes that the “federal interest” in going after medical marijuana dispensitories is anything other than the campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry is extremely naive (the federal government’s own medical and scientific experts believe that marijuana does have medical use) – but under our federal system even actions undertaken on behalf and for the sole benefit of major corporate campaign donors are legal. They are terrible policy decisions, but pefeclty legal.

Also the marijuana legalization efforts do not purport to overturn federal law – instead they state that the state will not prosecute those cases. That decision is one which our Constitution permits states to make. It is also a decision which really should be made on the state and local level. Indeed, the federal system was set up specifically to allow state experimentation of policy.

It is different then from a law like the Virginia law which stated that it was illegal to enforce the Affordable Care Act in Virginia. That was an example of state nullification. It also failed.

Ruslan Amirkhanov

“Yes, Ruslan, yes I can distinguish between the ideology of constant and maximum levels of corporate profit at the expense of the little guy – Capitalism, and the simple state of goods and services being exchanged within the dynamic of a proper and respectful relationship between the merchant and his community and countrymen, seeing to it that such boundaries are kept intact – capitalism.”

Sorry but no such distinction exists. You are looking at capitalism in a certain stage of development(and not too accurately at that) and thinking that capitalism as it is today isn’t somehow related to that. Small businesses become large businesses, which become multi-national corporations. They don’t just fall out of the sky. History shows that capitalist development begins with accumulation of capital, industrialization, and in advanced countries, a preponderance of finance. You can’t turn the clock back on this practice. This is something that neither liberals or conservatives seem to understand.

Also I don’t know what you mean when you claim that Mark Potok said that we were “friends” or anything of the sort. I have had no communication with Potok save for a comment on this blog where I, and several others, asked as to whether the SPLC had a certain copy of a blog post somewhere.

Furthermore, if a Communist website ran one of Mark’s posts, that has nothing to do with him. People re-print articles on the internet all the time.

CM

Brock Henderson said,
on February 20th, 2013 at 1:45 pm

“the simple state of goods and services being exchanged within the dynamic of a proper and respectful relationship between the merchant and his community and countrymen”

I take it they haven’t let you out of your padded cell to go shopping recently. Or subscribe to a cable TV or Internet provider. Or set up a telephone or electricity account. Certainly, you haven’t had to obtain medical services of any kind. If you had done any of these things within the past, oh, 30 years, you’d recognize the complete inanity of your comment. “Respectful relationship” my eye.

But maybe you’re simply being dishonest in order to promote an intellectually bankrupt and morally reprehensible ideology. Certainly, it’s necessary to believe (or pretend to believe) numerous impossible things in order to align with the right-wing pseudo-Patriot mindset.

Erika

What a charmer this Brock is. Seriously, we have a guy here who is pro-child labor and wants to bring back the Articles of Confederation (and also thinks that the states have free reign to do whatever they want to people including allowing people to own slaves). If his positions weren’t truly world class nutty in and of themselves he is also a complete mysognistic jerk.

i recommend that he join the local Hurricane and Tornado Protection Militia – or since he claims to be in California (as an aside isn’t it typical that most people who worship the South and the late Confederacy are not from here? The loudest neo-Confderate twits always tend to be the Carpetbaggers or children of Carpetbaggers. Either that or they are people like Brock who likely has never ever been to the South) maybe you can join the Earthquake Protection Militia so that when the earth starts shaking you start shooting :P

Ruslan Amirkhanov

More of Brock’s idiocy:

“children are supposed to be bored, angst-ridden, spoiled-rotten classroom drones exploring their sexuality and playing iPhone games.”

Kids who worked in factories were pretty angst-ridden too, what with all the dangers that 19th-early 20th century factories held for anyone working there. They also got to “explore their sexuality” or better said “got their sexuality explored” due to an institution known as prostitution, quite widespread during the Gilded Age up until the 1920′s, when a small and short-lived sexual revolution took its toll on the trade.

Brock Henderson

Oh and Aron, my super-bestest friend in the whole wide world, so sorry for forgetting, until now, to comment on another earlier remark of yours, the one about all people of all political stripes being free to comment here. My earlier point you were rebutting about the SPLC was about its fans, not its opposition. I clearly remember reading a comment from Mr. Potok himself on an old blog entry that you, Reynardine, and the great Bolshevik himself, Ruslan, were all great friends of his. A senior fellow at the SPLC – the self-appointed court of judges of what is acceptable for Americans to believe or not believe lest they be branded extremist or hate groups – calls a proud Marxist and Communist a close old friend of his. Oh, and an op-ed Mark wrote a few years ago appeared on a Communist Party website.

I rest my case. The company Mark keeps speaks the loudest volumes about who and what the SPLC really is.

Brock Henderson

Aron, I DID mean child labor, as in child employment. Who the heck thinks of children simply doing work, like chores around the house, when they hear the term “child labor”?Don’t let your liquified brain seep out of the crack in your head.

Yes, Ruslan, yes I can distinguish between the ideology of constant and maximum levels of corporate profit at the expense of the little guy – Capitalism, and the simple state of goods and services being exchanged within the dynamic of a proper and respectful relationship between the merchant and his community and countrymen, seeing to it that such boundaries are kept intact – capitalism.

Communists don’t like Capitalism, eh? Where have you been when American conservatives have called for the abolition of the Federal Reserve? You don’t fool me, Ruslan, so quit trying.

Erika

i pity the poor moderators here who are going to have to suffer through lots of comments by angry “Patriots”

and is anyone really surprised that Brock who dreams of a time when women could not vote, legally own property, or legally say “no” to their husbands also is a fan of child labor. Maybe someone should have put him to work in a textile mill when he was 8.

Erika

Apparently NRA comedian Wayne LaPierre claimed that people need guns to protect themselves from hurricanes and tornados (all of those guns there must be why no hurricanes and tornados ever hit Texas – oopsie)

Seriously, guns are now a defense against the weather.

Personally i now have a mental picture of Wayne LaPierre standing on the beach as Category Five Hurricane Erika bears down on him and firing shots into the 200 mile per hour winds and when that fails to stop them, right before he gets lifted off the ground and blown away he tosses the gun in vain to protect himself from the powerful winds, heavy rains, and approaching storm surge.

Maybe these Oath Keepers can join him on the beach to defend America against the rampaging Hurricane Erika. OF course, in that case, the odds of prying guns out of the cold dead hands of the anti-hurricane militia are probably pretty low since you’d have to have to find them first. In fact, most would probably wind out getting washed out to sea and its quite possible that there would be shotguns driven into palm tree trunks by the winds. That would be an interesting site.

Or perhaps, when the sirens go off warning of a coming tornado Wayne LaPierre runs out on his lawn with his gun to protect it. And again, i can imagine the same thing would occur with firing shots.

And with these Oath Keepers, perhaps when the sirens go off warning of a tornado or a ballistic missle attack or a Communist invasion or a sparrow flying into the siren mechanism all of the Oath Keepers can run to the town square with their guns and get ready to fight that tornado. Again, i kind of have the feeling that when an F5 hits that there isn’t going to be a lot of prying of guns out of cold dead hands because you’d have to find them first.

The Tornado and Hurricane Militia therefore just doesn’t seem to be destined for sucess

Alan Aardman

Between the marijuana initiatives in CO and WA and the anti-gun control laws recently passed in WY, advocates for nullification in all forms have been making huge strides on the state level. This is very worrying.

Right now, state legislatures are passing laws that could be written word-for-word by the Oath Keepers.

CM

Brock Henderson said,
on February 13th, 2013 at 2:03 pm

“No, Hayes and McKinley didn’t do anything to abolish child labor according to my knowledge. They’re so reprehensible for that, aren’t they, Aron? A kid learning the value of hard work and – gasp! – becoming a disciplined ADULT at an early age! … how evil that is!! Everyone knows nowadays that children are supposed to be bored, angst-ridden, spoiled-rotten classroom drones exploring their sexuality and playing iPhone games.”

Are you serious? Kids 14 and under working in sweatshops, meat-packing plants, lumber yards, coal mines – and without the benefit of wage-and-hour laws, safety regulations, etc. etc. – are “learning the value of hard work”? Learning the callous heartlessness of the money-grubbing ownership class, more like.

Brock, I think you missed the point. You made a claim that I had posted something about there being no government intervention in the economy during the Gilded Age. That was either an honest mistake on your part, or a deliberate lie. Personally I do not care which. As long as you have a class-based society you’re going to have a state, and thus there will always be state intervention. The “state” became far more obvious and powerful via capitalist development.

Now as for this: “Ruslan the Red, Comrade dearest, you are presupposing an inherently positive state of affairs we experience here in America in which all the stuff that used to be made here is now made elsewhere and in greater quantities. Needless to speak of the problem of employment – it’s all overseas and meanwhile our own American infrastructure is hollowed out to a skeleton crew. Now I know that is part and parcel of the trajectory of Capitalism which will eventually completely destroy America and with it the West, so I know you’re all for it. ”

Uh…What? Why would a Communist be for capitalism? If you get all upset about massive consumption, then you’re basically attacking the best aspect of capitalism. You can’t talk about the capitalist system being superior to 20th century socialism if you decry the abundance of consumer goods and innovation. What do you have left after that? Is it a more enlightened system? No- far more people were killed or died in the name of making profit than by Communism in the 20th century; attempts to assert otherwise amount to special pleading and arbitrary definitions of what constitutes being “killed by Communism.” It can’t be culture, because under socialism a larger portion of the people were able to have access to culture and participate in its creation. It’s not “freedom,” because such freedom has very little to do with capitalism but rather the security situation of a given state. So tons of plastic crap and other products is the main way to go- 20th century socialism had a concrete disadvantage in the production of consumer goods.

You see, when you acknowledged that globalization is basically inherent to capitalism, you were on the right track. Where you go wrong is trying to pull a No True Scotsman with this “little c capitalism” stuff. You can’t turn back the clock on capitalism. Either it develops into something else, a synthesis which delivers its best features without its worst, or you basically just create a fettered economy which will eventually end up right back where it started.

concernedcitizen

It’s quite interesting to me that extremists like to hide behind the selling point that it will never lead to violent action. They are merely a nice group of loving people who just like to discuss violence, compare guns and ammo over a communal beer barrel. And yet, again and again we read headlines like this:

The neo-Nazi who slaughtered Sikhs developed his views in the Army and on the white power music scene.

This was a guy who exercised his right to play and listen to white power music that promoted hate. And I suppose that he may have considered himself a person saving the rest of America from the peace loving Sikhs that he decided to slaughter in cold blood one day. When what we all really needed was to be saved from him and his kind.

It is said that he developed his views in the Army, really! You don’t say! (sarcastically) The racist idiots who have attached themselves to our American Army cannot be a well held secret, it’s a disgusting truth.

Somehow idiots have come to the most erroneous conclusions that by wearing an American Army Uniform they are training for the SS.

Again when we thought stupidity could go no further, the imbeciles go and surprise us by spiraling into new depths of idiocy.

concernedcitizen

@kiwiwriter you stated: The truth is…”you’re just not too happy that elections and legislation don’t go your way, and rather than accept the results of elections and legislation, and put up with them until you can legally change them, you want to overthrow the government, and replace it with your own personal tyranny.”

Directed at the sovereign citizens movement and I agree that you have hit the nail on the head.

Reynardine

Brock, you are remarkable for the grandiloquence and prolixity of your oligophrenia.

Erika

Brick, oospie i mean Brock (actual mistake there), good thing for you that no one will actually bother to go back and read your actual words to show that your “implication” was not a “mistake” or a “mistatement” and you main reaction was simply to attack my education and imply that i must have gone to a low ranking law school. with a large amount of sexist condensation as well.

Maybe you can fool some people but whatever :P

Aron

Brock,

It’s obvious you spent all of your formative years in the salt mines. Otherwise you wouldn’t be such an ignoramus.

I have no issue with children helping out in the family business. What you seem to supporting is CHILD LABOR which is a totally different thing, doofus. You know it, I know it, and my hive full of bonnetted bees know it.

And with that, I shall never respond to you again, as you simply are not worth my time.

Erika

Aron, you are very kind – i am actually a very shy person by nature, so choosing to be the type of lawyer who writes rather than the type of lawyer who talks was an easy choice. i’m still involved in litigation, its just now i write arguments behind the scenes and someone else argues them. i much prefer it that way.

and you don’t have to call me Princess Erika (unless you really want to). Only the Oath Keepers, Tea Party types, sovereign citizens, libertarians, and anarcho-capitalists do because they believe that individual people can choose whatever government type they want and which provisions of the Constitution to ignore – so if that is the case, then i want to be a Princess :)

Brock Henderson

They’re called protective tariffs and endless corporate subsidies, Aron. Those are types of regulation and intervention. Look up the exact names of the bills passed and signed into law during the time in a friggin’ research database, for Heaven’s sake. No, Hayes and McKinley didn’t do anything to abolish child labor according to my knowledge. They’re so reprehensible for that, aren’t they, Aron? A kid learning the value of hard work and – gasp! – becoming a disciplined ADULT at an early age! . . . how evil that is!! Everyone knows nowadays that children are supposed to be bored, angst-ridden, spoiled-rotten classroom drones exploring their sexuality and playing iPhone games. Thank God that the past is past! And yep, colonial-thru-antebellum-era Americans and their modern-day apologists are all FASCISTS! On a serious note, you do know that you are an ideologically blinded and hence uneducated idiot if you believe that last one, right?

Disclaimer: I am not one of these “sovereign citizens.” They’re just a little nutty for me. But Kiwiwriter, how can a federal constitutional republican-style government created by a handful of constitutional republican states explicitly prohibit secession? I can understand that an EMPIRE will of course prohibit secession and vigorously and violently enforce such a claim (hmm, there’s something astoundingly familiar about what I just said, according to my knowledge of history), but a federal constitutional republic? Oh, and when you stated it is illegal to secede, were you talking about the amendment to the Constitution, duly and freely ratified by the people of the states, I’m sure, which explicitly says so? You’ll directly answer my questions without any invective, won’t you, because you’re not trying to cover up any sinister intentions toward your political opposition, right? Have a nice day.

Ruslan the Red, Comrade dearest, you are presupposing an inherently positive state of affairs we experience here in America in which all the stuff that used to be made here is now made elsewhere and in greater quantities. Needless to speak of the problem of employment – it’s all overseas and meanwhile our own American infrastructure is hollowed out to a skeleton crew. Now I know that is part and parcel of the trajectory of Capitalism which will eventually completely destroy America and with it the West, so I know you’re all for it. Some of us aren’t. That’s why I’m ok with capitalism (little “c,” meaning simply free enterprise, the real enemy you’re out to destroy), but in fact I abhor Capitalism (big “C,” the economic ideology which you and your comrades in fact love, because it will eventually lead to the end of free enterprise – the great roadblock, along with religion, standing in the way of Communism). Capitalism (Big “C”) leads to mass consumption, which leads to corruption of the moral character of any given nation or civilization of people. And it IS the official U.S. state religion. I vividly remember President Bush saying on TV about 5 years ago at the beginning of the present economic recession that the government wants us good and faithful American consumers to keep spending money. As opposed to – gasp! – maybe SAVING it.

Erika, babycakes, I already corrected my implication in a previous thread that the Bill of Rights addresses the states, as obviously only the Tenth Amendment does that. Anxious to misrepresent people’s arguments, are we?

Aron

Princess Erika,

I’m very sorry to hear that. I would figure in a courtroom, you are as beautiful and deadly as a blue shark with a harpoon.

But if there’s one thing I understand, it is stress. And I know how impossible that can be to deal with sometimes. So I’m glad we have you to ‘practice law’ here on the Hatewatch board :)

Erika

Solo, when everybody is sovereign and can enforce what they think the Constitution says you do not have a Constiuttion – you have anarchy. No government can function if every citizen is empowered to declare what the law is. Government has to function using compromise and sometimes your view is simply going to lose.

You sovereign citizens sound like a bunch of spoiled children who think that the world revolves around you, do not play well with others, and throw temper tantrums when you do not get your way. Effectively you hate the Constitution and would prefer a more dictatorial form of government (although what possibly makes you guys think that you will be the dictators is beyond my understanding).

i mean, i’ll be the first to admit that i am a total spoiled brat who tends to whine and cry when i don’t get my way but i am also an adult who knows that i can’t always get my way. i know that the world really does not revolve around me. i also kind of know that if i actually did get my way all of the time it would not make me happy and would likely get kind of boring after a while.

But you should still call me Princess Erika anyway :P

Erika

Aron, its a good thing that i know that you are only interested in seeing me in court because you are sure that it will be a courtroom featuring a sexist pig judge who favors clients of young and pretty female attorneys who wear short skirts, low cut blouses, stockings, and high heels (and of course, cute shark lapel pins – thanks Rey). Sadly, when i was at the public defender’s office most of the cases i tried happened to actually be in such a courtroom. Even sadder – but likely much more appealing for you – the prosecutor’s office almost always assigned a pretty blonde prosecutor who was smart enough to figure out the same thing that i did. The good news is i am pretty sure that being smart enough to know the judges preferences did keep me out of jail for contempt on more than one occasion in that court room. And yes, i really do hate it when the inherent sexism and mysogny of the legal system actually works to my advantage :)

Otherwise, i would be sure that you would be trying to kill me. Going to court is extremely stressful for me – and stress is even more dangerous that a swarm of Erika killing bees or a pack of hungry Erika eating dogs – and my primary reaction to stress is either to shut down completely or to get very upset and start yelling at the slightest provokocation. Neither reaction is very good for an attorney (seriously, i was a terrible trial attorney which is why i switched to a job where i don’t go to court) – in fact, shutting down completely and sitting there looking cute as the mean prosecutor and judge railroads your client is probably the absolute worst thing that a defense attorney can do. Or maybe yelling at the biased, mean, crazy, and stupid judge about how biased, mean, crazy, and stupid he is worse due to the strong possibly of being led out of the courtroom to jail in shackles and handcuffs by the baliffs. Of course, maybe you’d find that to be an appealing sight Aron :P

And btw, i actually did get really upset in the courtroom of the aforementioned sexist pig of a judge and told him exactly what i thought of him, but fortunately i was not hauled off to jail for contempt (although i most assuredly should have been) and instead escaped with a slap on my wrist – although i’m pretty sure that the judge would have much more preferred slapping a different part of my body ;)

Did i mention that i hate it when the inherent sexism and mysogny of the legal system works to my advantage?

Ruslan Amirkhanov

The Constitution does not entitle the public at large to “enforce” the Constitution. In fact the public is not even entitled to interpret it(that’s why we have something called the Supreme Court).

Kiwiwriter

‘All federal employees, as our servants, take an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution. But as sovereign citizens, we have a duty to ENFORCE the Constitution.

‘Our “oath of office” as a sovereign citizen should be, “I promise to defend and protect my family and property against all enemies foreign and domestic, and to the Constitution for the United States, against all public servants that violate it.” Liberals will never understand this concept!’

And so, logically, “sovereign citizens” proceed to “enforce” the Constitution by filling out courts with frivolous lawsuits and false “liens” to harass government employees performing their duties under the Constitution.

And “Sovereign citizens” print their own money and refuse to pay taxes, also in violation of the Constitution.

And threaten to secede when elections don’t go their way, in violation of the Constitution.

How is all this “enforcing” the Constitution? What gives you the power to “enforce” it? Your “people’s grand juries?”

I think the “liberals” and conservatives understand, “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution pretty well. And “Defending” it is “enforcing” it.

When “public servants violate” the Constitution, we have a great deal of tools under the Constitution, to address that behavior, ranging from the courts to public protest to the media. Ask any public servant who gets nailed by any of these entities. Even US Senators, state governors, and military officers have felt the lash of such punishments, not to mention considerable amounts of smaller fry.

The truth is…you’re just not too happy that elections and legislation don’t go your way, and rather than accept the results of elections and legislation, and put up with them until you can legally change them, you want to overthrow the government, and replace it with your own personal tyranny.

Actually, you don’t even want that…as Eric Hoffer tartly observed, “the real goal of the fanatic is to give meaning to an otherwise threadbare life — to feel worthwhile and important in spite of deep-seated feelings of worthlessness.”

Gregory

Chiming in late, but well done Erika!

Solo, if you really believe what you posted then you need help. Get it before you hurt yourself or others around you.

Reynardine

Indeed not, Solo, because most of us are sane.

Solo

“Semper Potentator”, which in Latin means, “Always sovereign.”

All federal employees, as our servants, take an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution. But as sovereign citizens, we have a duty to ENFORCE the Constitution.

Our “oath of office” as a sovereign citizen should be, “I promise to defend and protect my family and property against all enemies foreign and domestic, and to the Constitution for the United States, against all public servants that violate it.” Liberals will never understand this concept!

Kiwiwriter

I’d like to know where the Oath Keepers were in 2001 and 2002, when the Patriot Act was passed, the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay was opened, the CIA “waterboarded” prisoners, and President Bush sent good American, British, Canadian, and Australian kids to fight and die in Iraq for an absolute lie.

Why weren’t they standing up for the Constitution back then?

Oh, and “BobbyXD9?” That’s an interesting handle. Too bad you swallowed a bunkum quote from Adolf. He didn’t say it.

And I’m always amused when people say that if the Jews of Europe had guns, they could have stood up to the Nazi hordes. That’s pretty funny. The great partisan movements of World War II were only successful because they received massive supply drops of powerful weaponry from the British, Americans, or Soviets. The Yugoslavian partisans had a nice coastline for the British to ship over arms, and some of their best partisan troops were Italians who deserted when Mussolini fell, joining Tito, and taking their guns with them.

Also, Hitler’s tanks knocked off France in less than six weeks. The French had plenty of guns. They had more of them than the Germans, too. They also had more tanks, and better tanks, than the Germans. More fighter and attack aircraft, too. And half of the French border was protected by the Maginot Line. The French still fell in less than six weeks!

The Jews of Europe did try to fight back. Ever hear of the defense of the Warsaw Ghetto? The Nazis just sent in more troops, mostly Ukrainian SS men from the training center, and these mercenaries were delighted to kill Jews. The SS used flamethrowers and blew up buildings. The Germans killed and captured 56,065 defenders in 28 days by their accounting, and probably 20,000 more. The survivors were hauled off to Auschwitz to meet their well-documented fate, and the ghetto was left a ruin.

I get amused by Americans who point to 1776 and defeating the British, as if they can do it again, that if they mass their Minutemen on the town green and fire a few musket balls, they’ll defeat the 2nd Marine Division. Or whatever enemy they think is going to invade America: the French Foreign Legion, the 1st Royal Gurkha Regiment, the Canadian Scottish, The Singapore Defense Force. Warfare has changed a lot since 1776. Here’s a clue, guys: “Red Dawn” and “Red Dawn” were movies.

Anyway, we will not be defeated by invasion, nor is our government likely to turn into a tyranny, unless we make it one. Our destruction will come at the hands of people who want to overthrow this country, secede from it, or destroy their fellow citizens, in other words, the radicals. As Abraham Lincoln said, “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

Reynardine

As it is almost Valentine’s Day, let us pool the rest of our precious metals and send out little luminous hearts to Brother Joseph, wherever he is, so he may return safely. Other than that, in honor of his return, let us convey to Brother Ruslan a suitable siege engine with which to fight a renewed Battle of Retrograd.

Reynardine

Erika, in the event of another attack of tenacious flu, let me convey to you, right now, a white gold Sharkie with chocolate diamond eyes. It goes with everything and is mounted as a lapel pin, so you can wear it to court. In an emergency, you can stick it into the sitius of Learned Opposing Counsel.

Aron

Erika, I am in awe. I have just sent some of my bonnetted bees to your house to deliver some honey as a tribute.

Now I really wish I could see you in court!

Erika

Ron, you are pining for a free country which never ever existed other than in conservative fantasies. Liberals know that America has never been a truly free country – that the promise of liberty has long been restricted solely to white males (and often solely to rich white males) with women and racial and ethnic minorities facing systemic discrimination. And the poor facing a system specifically designed to keep them poor and exploit their labor for the benefit of the rich people who truly rule this country (there are no poor or middle class people in Congress).

In fact, when you really look at the history of the United States it really exposes how much America ever being a free country was a myth. In fact, America has never ever been truly a free country and came closest in the period starting in the 1960s due to the Civil Rights and feminist movement.

Here is how much real respect the founding fathers had for freedom: less than 10 years after the First Amendment was ratified, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act. One of the primary purposes of the Bill of Rights was for Southerners to secure their rights in owning slaves. At the time of the founding and the Bill of Rights, women effectively had no rights and while not technically slaves were basically one step above slaves. Poor whites weren’t much better also having very little rights. The Bill of Rights in fact was largely passed to protect wealth – it really only started protecting other things in the Warren Court era in the 1960s.

The states were under no compulsion to protect people’s rights until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 and realistically not until the Supreme Court began to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states in the 1920s. And really not until the Civil Rights era – with the Warren Court and the Civil Rights Act of 1964/Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Title IX finally providing some protection for the rights of women in the early 1970s. In fact, contrary to Oath Keepers claims, the United States is actually a much more free country today that it was in 1789, 1900, or 1950. While the Warren Court precedents and the Bill of Rights is under systemic attack from right wingers on the Supreme Court there is still a lot of it left – and unlike in 1789 it protects more than just rich white males (which is ultimately one of the claims that the Oath Keepers make in how we have lost freedom – the freedom to slap around your wife or discriminate against someone because of the color of their skin, for example – maybe their patron saint can be Lester Maddox who claimed that his personal property rights in his Atlanta business were destroyed when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forced him to serve black customers (actually he closed his business voluntarily – and then sold his property to Georgia Tech at a profit and then became Georgia Governor somehow despite losing both the primary and the general election – fun portion of Georgia history there) – so in other words, he lost “his freedom” by not being able to discriminate against black people anymore – or deprive other people of their freedom.

Women were not granted the right to vote until 1920 – universal sufferage was not really protected in the U.S. until the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

If the right to counsel is so important to you, it was only in the 1960s with Gideon v. Wainright that states were required to provide counsel to people who could not afford it and were facing felony charges (and there are still a lot of wholes in that because there are many people who cannot afford attorneys who are not qualified as indigent). Of course, before that, you were allowed counsel if you were facing execution. Not that did people much good (look up the Martinsville Seven case for example) since their counsel may well have not done much to represent them (or while not criminal in the case of Buck v. Bell, the counsel representing Carrie Buck was actually hostile to her interests – that was also the case in the Martinsville Seven case as well)

Up to the 1940s and 1950s, the federal government openly discriminated against people based upon race. Even today the federal government is still discriminating against people based upon gender (women working in federal jobs are making less than men in equivilent federal jobs for example – the government is still overwhelmingly controlled by white men).

Police have long been able to basically beat, kill, and rape people with impunity – with the victims being overwhelmingly minorities and women.

Ever since the drug war began in the 1930s and really stepped up in the 1980s it has been mainly an excuse to violate rights of poor people.

A conservative Supreme Court has essentially repealed the Fourth Amendment – in any case, the Fourth Amendment was really only meaningful once the exclusionary rule started – and that wasn’t until Mapp v. Ohio in 1961. So essentialy the Fourth Amendment was only meaningful between 1961 and about 2000.

The Eight Amendment essentially is meaningless – once the Supreme Court upheld a life sentence for someone who wrote bad checks under a third strike type law, forget it. The drug war has also led to riduculously draconian sentences – look up the Armed Career Criminal Act.

The First Amendment has long been under assault by right wingers – whether right wing religious types seeking to mandate Christianity as the state religion or destroy the freedom of speech or corporations using what are known as SLAPP lawsuits to silence critics. They have done a pretty good job at it to.

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments aren’t that much better.

The Supreme Court in upholding so called “tort reform” legislation essentially has repealed the Seventh Amendment (and it did quite a lot of damage to the Fifth in the process). In fact, pretty much everything here is designed specifically to help large corporations at the expense of everybody else (we have essentially returned to the Lochner era of Constitutional law where money rules all and the only liberty that mattes is the liberty of the ultra rich and corporations to walk away with everything – or if you want to be technical the right of contract).

And ask a Conservative about the Ninth Amendment and you will likely get a blank stare (ask Brock who somehow thinks that hte Bill of Rights was designed to protect states even though the Ninth Amendment makes that argument obviously wrong)

And of course, women are still systemically discriminated against in this country with the gains that women have made since the 1960s (odd that the time where Ron starts his decline of freedom is the point where black people and women started getting their freedoms) constantly being under assault by the right wing. Now they are actually trying to completely ban access to birth control – apparently to produce more babies to become global mercanaries or work in sub minimum wage jobs.

None of this are new developments – as noted, the Congress of the United States started attacking the First Amendment by making criticism of the government illegal within a decade of its passage. In fact, about the only time when the Constitution and Bill of Rights really worked as intended was during the brief period of the Warren Court which actually protected the rights of all Americans rather than just the rich and powerful. Those gains have largely been lost.

So really my question is why did it take you this long to figure it out? And why does it take supposed infringements of the Second Amendment which most assurededly was never intended to grant individual rights and in fact up until the NRA started claiming that the Second Amendment was designed to create an individual right in the 1970s and 1980s no one ever said that. There is a reason why the gun nuts waited for Chief Justice Rehnquist to die to bring a case making that argument – they needed to not just have right wingers but politicized and radical right wingers since they were effectively amending the Constitution.

Now isn’t it strange that a group which cheers and applauds numerous infringements of every other right in the Bill of Rights – and indeed argues for more restrictions of every other right – is suddenly so upset over guns? Especially when none of the other rights in the Bill of Rights has ever been absolute which is what they are arguing for guns and “Congress shall make no law infringing the freedom of speech” is a hell of a lot clearer than the Second Amendment.

The claims that the Oath Keepers are somehow upset about these infringements of rights rings hollow when hardly a peep has been heard of them for example due to the massive depravation of rights in poor areas caused by the drug war or the continued discrimination against racial and ethinic minorities and women until a Black man was elected president. And even now, they are not complaining about continued systematic discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities and women – they are complaining that the government might take their penises (oopsie, i mean guns) even though that has never been proposed by anyone. That somehow limiting the size of a magazine will make them less of men (of course, since their guns are substitute penises to compensate for their obvious manhood issues for them maybe it really will make them less of a man to only be able to shoot 10 elementary school students without reloading)

The Oath Keepers do not care about rights – they most definitely do not care about the rights of minorities or women – they are nothing but the Ku Klux Klan with a new name and without the silly robes and pointed caps.

Ruslan Amirkhanov

Brock, let me clarify- I did not “imply” that the American people should thank China, I pretty much explicitly stated it. The US and China teamed up starting as early as 1969 against the USSR. Initially much of the cooperation was in the realm of foreign policy, but later on as China opened to US investors it saved American corporations at a time when Japan and Germany were becoming more efficient while American corporations had a lot of their money tied down in inefficient fixed capital. It’s all very complex of course, but suffice to say that you need only look at things like Wal-Mart and other cheap consumer goods with Made in China stamped on them to understand how China contributed to the US’ standards of living. You cannot brag about the superiority of US society in comparison with say, the DDR or the USSR on the matter of consumer goods if you’re not going to credit China for our massive abundance of said goods.

To counter your other claim, I never said that there was no US government involvement in the economy during the Gilded Age. There was and always will be government involvement in the economy. At the very least the government maintains courts which enforce contracts and protect private property. What is indisputably true, however, is that there was far less government REGULATION of the private sector during the Gilded Age when compared to say, the New Deal era and everything afterward. And with far less government regulation, life was indisputably worse for most people. I don’t know why you brought that up and I don’t know why you felt the need to lie.

And that brings me to your comment about our “state religion of mass consumption.” Excuse me but consumption is a natural part of capitalism. How can one brag about the superiority of capitalism while harping about “mass consumption,” and why do you associate it with the state?

And lastly, I don’t carry a card.

You also get an F.

Aron

Hey Brockie Dearest,

Everyone and their mother knows that our dear friend Ruslan is a Marxist. He is allowe to comment here, the same as the facists, both crypto-fascists like yourself, and the real kind as can be evidenced on other pages.

In regards to your comments that the government WAS involved in regulation during the Guilded Age, I would very much like to see your evidence. And no, debates amongst the Framers do not count, darling.

Show me how Hayes put his foot down and said, ‘Dammit, we can’t have any more of this child labor! They need to be at least twelve before they start working the salt mines.’

Please. Show us all how smart you are.

Reynardine

Ah, look at that little bug-eating Brock! The best thing he can come up with is “that Ruslan creature” whargarble! Ruslan, I suspect that is one of the refugees from Retrograd, who ate against his ideals, and now he’ll never be able to articulate a cogent thought again.

Brock Henderson

I’m sorry, did that much-balleyhooed Ruslan creature really just imply that the American people should THANK the People’s Republic of China for their current lifestyle – the dutiful adherence to our state religion of mass consumption, that is? Wow, so the SPLC really is THAT far-left! An actual card-carrying Communist is on the roll of one of their blogs! I’m kind of surprised, although I shouldn’t be. No wonder he made that completely nonsensical and thoroughly false comment awhile back that there was no U.S. government involvement in the economy during the Gilded Age. You have to be good and far to the left to believe such silliness.

CM

Bobby XD9, the only thing you’ve proven with your comment is your gullibility. The alleged quote from Hitler that you reproduce is a thoroughly debunked fake. Details available at:

Please note that the debunkers include some of the more sober-thinking pro-gun-rights advocates.

These discussions would really go a lot more smoothly if people would stick with the real facts and stop making up their own.

Reynardine

Mr. Harview, the Second Amendment contemplated that free, white males over twenty-one would turn out on weekends and drill as an armed constabulary- armed, I say, with muzzle-loading muskets and flintlock pistols (I have fired the latter) which required reloading each time with wad, ball, and powder horn. This constabulary was available against incursions by British, Spaniards, pirates (if maritime), Indians (if near a frontier), and the occasional uprising by everyone from moonshiners to slaves. Frequently, the town owned a cannon, but the individual household did not. I have no objection to such weapons, so long as they are owned by the sane. The Founding Fathers assuredly did not contemplate that anyone would have had the ability to strafe down twenty schoolchildren and five or six teachers in ten seconds, much less that they would want to. They assuredly never intended to accord them the right to.

Erika

Brock, you adorable Twinkee(R) brand creme filled sponge cake, aren’t you the one who wants to bring back the Articles of Confederation? And let’s see, that means that not only do you oppose the Bill of Rights, you also oppose the U.S. Constiution itself.

And while it is very sweet of you, you don’t have to call me Goddess Erika

i actually prefer Princess Erika :P

Reynardine

Oh, look, Brock is out of his sett and eating bugs again!

Meanwhile, welcome back, Ruslan. You missed the Battle of Retrograd and all the people eating against their ideals.

Reynardine

Bobby, quit lying for Adolf.

CM

If anyone would like to read a detailed debunking of the claim that the Second Amendment was intended to give everyone in America the absolute right to carry a gun anytime, anywhere, the redoubtable Chris Rodda has done the heavy lifting. It’s here:

One important point among many: At the time the Constitution was written, the phrase “to bear arms” meant “to serve in the military,” either in a militia or the regular services. It did not mean “carry a gun.” And there is no doubt whatsoever that the framers did indeed intend for the “well-regulated militia” to be regulated by the government.

Rodda’s post is a response to a book on the Second Amendment by David Barton. That in itself should tell you something about the right-wing claims: A good rule of thumb is that if Barton says it, it’s probably a lie.

AussieAndrew

So, I’m guessing those “true defenders” placed personal comfort and instead complained about how bad this was on the internet in the comfort of their homes then?

I’m a gun owner. And a shooter. But sales of guns are highly regulated in this country. And I’m a big supporter of that. I know I am responsible. It’s other people with easy access to weapons that scare me.

Ron Christian

The Oath Keepers do have a lot of odd people at their fringes. But, you don’t have to be a nut to be alarmed by the current state of the law. Throughout Watergate, the civil rights events of the 1960s, Vietnam, Watergate, Iran Contra, police misconduct, etc, the ONLY thing that really protected us all these years has been the rule of law, which is founded in the Bill of Rights. But, the Bill of Rights has been largely destroyed by the “Patriot” Act, the Citizens United decision, and the NDAA. It is now the state of US law that the President can make any of us disappear, and even kill us, without even having to give a reason – no probable cause, no warrant, no hearing, no lawyer, no trial, nothing. Sure, now we get habeas corpus as of the 2013 version of the NDAA, but we without a right to a lawyer, what good is it? Show me a law that the government has not eventually used inappropriately. It is only a matter of time before the government moves from carrying out drone strikes, renditions, and torture in foreign lands to doing them right here at home in the name of “security.” It is “legal” after all – because the president’s lawyers say it is. No amount of name calling, side taking, or blaming changes the simple fact that we have broken loose from the rule of law in our country. Bin Laden must be laughing from the grave.

Andrew

“What part of shall not be infringed don’t you understand?”

Sounds a lot like “what part of illegal don’t you understand?”

Funny how these same gun packing, don’t tread on me, tea party people who gripe about how the government is coming to round them up and put them in a FEMA camp, are the same people who advocate for the government to descend on the homes of people who have dark skin and speak Spanish, kick in their doors, round them all up and kick them all out.

Kiwiwriter

I’m always amused by how the “Oath Keepers” love their country while hating its institutions and the people who run them. I guess those folks are not Americans but Eskimos or Gurkhas, maybe.

It also amuses me how they prattle that we stand at the edge of Armageddon…the John Birchers spouted that during the 1960s, the McCarthyites during the 1950s, the Silver Shirts and Coughlinites in the 1930s, and so on. We’re always headed for disaster, but never actually seem to get there.

And they all delight in the prospect of a Mad Max-type world, in which they think that they will all band together to protect that final bunker, and all the people who had ignored them until that moment will rally around them in desperation and fear.

Actually, I think the only thing these folks will be capable of should universal disaster come is to settle a few old scores and grudges in their neighborhoods — whacking the business partner who sold them out, the rival for their girlfriend’s affections, the geometry teacher who failed them, the bully who stuffed them in the garbage can in middle school, and so on.

Then they’ll go down before the bigger force. Assuming there is a Mad-Max type situation. But I doubt that will happen. Remember, the United States adopted the son of Nikita Khrushchev and the grandson of Isoroku Yamamoto. We are amazingly resilient.

Sam Molloy

Aron, your playful renaming of the Oath Keeper to the Oak Eaters could be strangely prophetic. If their money printer runs out of ink, you think that could not happen here? “It can’t happen here” is possibly the most dramatically mistaken phrase ever uttered throughout human history, over and over, in many languages.

Bobby XD9

“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” – Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

http://yahoo.com chuck

Anti-Government -Anti anything , paranoid groups have existed for centuries!!!! Personally , these paranoid , plot theorist are truly misguided , paranoid , and delusional. Our country protects all citizens in accordance with the 2nd amendment , in view of raising a home militia , in defense of invasion on land or sea , or in the case of self -protection during home invasion and or physical assault of ones person , self defense. Trigger happy citizens carry this to extremes , and therefore law abiding citizens ask our elected officials for clarity , and safety against gun wielding extremist!!!!!!!!